Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missosology


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. —  Aitias  // discussion 01:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Missosology

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Thinly-veiled references to a website that studies beauty pageants. So-called references include the site itself, a blog, a comment on a Wikia site referring to a Harry Turtledove satirical piece that has nothing do with this subject, and a comment on a Wikia link that refers to the previous ref. It borders on WP:BOLLOCKS, but it's mainly a neologism with no usage outside this one web site. All ghits are either to the site itself or links to it. Not notable in the least. (Contested prod.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Neo at best, no reliable sources, no notability (and badly written to boot). Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  01:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 02:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * comment to tell tyou the turth, this article was created as a repsonse to Miss Tourism World; in tha tarticle, the article refers to "missologists" which according to my resaerch on Goolgl indicates that this might be soemthign connected to the world of beauty pagenats. If at all possible, i am humbly requestiong assistance ine stablishing notability; al ot of prominennt places seem to reference this concept so i thought it was notable. please dont be angr y with me i was only working on improving the flourry of red lnks prevalient throughout certain sections of the Wikipedia Smith Jones (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not angry at all. We've all had articles up for deletion before. Keep on trying, and don't hesitate to ask for help if you need it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well this was a bad choice of where to start helping with that, given that it isn't actually a word. In the future, please bear in mind that people red-link all sorts of rubbish.  That doesn't necessarily imply that a valid article can be written at the red-linked titles.  Sometimes it means that the content of the article with the link in requires serious attention. Uncle G (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * thats a fair point and i thank you for your exepertise/advice. I googled Missosology and it hoguth it was some kind of tehcnical term that was used in the beauty pageant agency/industry. and then i saw this really professional looking wwebsite here which indicates an affiliation to several prominent modeling competitons liek Miss Universe and Miss Earth and Miss World which was all having their old articles remainder. Smith Jones (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unusual, you are being kind. Article lacks coherence and, most of all, verifiable and dependable sources to establish the notability of its topic. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete There might be an entry here, but as written this should be deleted. AniMate  talk  17:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.